Welcome to the Debate Evaluation!

You'll be evaluating a debate where two sides discuss a topic. Your opinion matters - you'll vote how persuasive each side is in each stage. We will use your feedback to improve the debate quality.

What to Expect:

Debate Structure

The full debate includes:

  • Opening: 4 min audio per side
  • Rebuttal: 4 min audio per side
  • Closing: 2 min audio per side

You'll evaluate a portion of this debate.

Your Evaluation Tasks

For each stage, you'll:

  • Rate the persuasiveness of each side's statements
  • Update your position after hearing each argument
  • Provide optional feedback
Final Comparison

In the final stage:

  • You'll see two versions of each side's closing statement
  • Rate each version independently
  • Select which version you found more persuasive
Important: Before beginning, you'll vote for the side you initially support. After each stage, you'll have the opportunity to reconsider and update your position based on the arguments presented.
Note: Throughout the evaluation, you'll encounter attention check questions to ensure data quality. Participants who demonstrate thoughtful engagement will receive compensation as agreed. If you're unable to commit to providing quality responses, you may exit the survey at any time without penalty.

Rating Guide for Persuasiveness:

1
Poor

Limited evidence with poor organization or fundamental logic flaws. Disengage with no audience awareness.

2
Weak

Reasonable statements with at least one noticeable weakness.

3
Moderate

Reasonable statements, which provide on-topic evidence with logical flow and balanced emotional tone showing basic audience awareness

4
Strong

Reasonable statements with at least one impressive shining points.

5
Compelling

Powerful evidence with effective counterpoints and create deep connection with audience.

* indicate required question

Motion: Congress Should Abolish The Debt Ceiling


Question 1: Pre-Vote Stage
End of Pre-Vote Stage Comparison
Question 2: Opening Stage
For Side
(Optional) For - Transcript
The debt ceiling isn’t just broken—it’s actively sabotaging our economy and hurting families. Today, we show why Congress must abolish it. This arbitrary legal limit on how much the U.S. government can borrow to pay bills it has already approved doesn’t promote fiscal responsibility—it manufactures crises. Abolishing it doesn’t mean unlimited spending; it means removing a cap that forces unnecessary economic chaos. The real question is: Does this limit help or hurt America? The answer is clear: it hurts, and here’s why.

First, the debt ceiling creates unnecessary political crises that harm the economy. Think of it like locking your car *after* crashing it—it doesn’t prevent the crash, it just stops you from fixing the damage. Every few years, Congress debates whether to pay bills we’ve already racked up, spiking uncertainty in financial markets. According to *a 2011 report by the Government Accountability Office*, the 2011 debt ceiling standoff increased Treasury bond rates by 0.7%, costing taxpayers $19 billion annually in higher borrowing costs. Even the threat of default hurts consumer confidence and business investment. Research from *Standard & Poor’s* shows the 2011 crisis led to the first-ever U.S. credit rating downgrade, which made loans more expensive for everyone from homeowners to small businesses. Critics claim abolition risks overspending, but budgets—not debt ceilings—determine fiscal discipline. The ceiling is a relic that adds chaos where none should exist.

Second, this chaos hits the most vulnerable the hardest. When government payments are delayed or shutdowns loom, who suffers? Not Wall Street. It’s low-income families relying on Social Security, veterans waiting for benefits, and kids depending on school lunches. These Americans can’t afford missed paychecks or paused services. They’re the ones left scrambling when politicians play chicken with the debt ceiling. A policy that punishes those already struggling isn’t just flawed—it’s unjust.

Third, the debt ceiling doesn’t even do what it’s supposed to. As *Dr. Laura Blessing, Senior Fellow at Georgetown University*, testified, "There is little evidence that the debt ceiling provides fiscal restraint." It doesn’t control spending—that happens during budget decisions. The ceiling just stops us from paying bills we’ve already agreed to cover. The *Government Accountability Office* explains it clearly: "The debt limit does not control or limit the ability of the federal government to run deficits... it is a limit on the ability to pay obligations already incurred." Abolishing the ceiling doesn’t greenlight spending—it ensures Congress debates budgets *before* spending, not after.

So what’s the alternative? Simple: abolish the debt ceiling. Let Congress debate spending when they approve budgets, not after the fact. Countries like Denmark replaced its rigid ceiling in 1993 with dynamic debt monitoring—resulting in zero crises and lower borrowing costs than the U.S. This isn’t about reckless borrowing—it’s about paying what we owe without manufactured crises.

Abolishing the ceiling won’t fix all fiscal challenges—but it removes a recurring roadblock to solving them. The debt ceiling is a relic that creates economic instability, hurts the vulnerable, and fails at its only job. Tell Congress: Stop holding our economy hostage. Text ‘ABOLISH’ to 52886 to connect with your representative—it takes 30 seconds to help end this crisis. Thank you.

Output A - Against Side
(Optional) Against - Transcript A
Ladies and gentlemen, today we stand against abolishing the debt ceiling—not because we enjoy political brinkmanship, but because this tool remains essential to fiscal responsibility. Let’s be clear: the debt ceiling isn’t the problem; it’s the accountability mechanism we need to curb reckless spending.

First, the debt ceiling acts as a crucial check on government spending. Think of it like a credit card limit: you set the limit *before* spending, not after. The ceiling forces Congress to periodically review and justify borrowing, ensuring we don’t blindly pile on debt. The opponent claims budgets alone determine spending, but budgets are passed in the heat of political agendas. The debt ceiling is the cold shower—the moment we ask, “Can we *really* afford this?” Without it, nothing stops Congress from writing blank checks. According to the *Joint Economic Committee’s February 2025 report*, the U.S. national debt grows at a staggering $65,275 per second—proof that unchecked borrowing demands structural safeguards.

Second, abolishing the ceiling risks long-term economic harm. Economists like Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, warn that even short-term debt ceiling crises can trigger lasting damage. The *2011 debt ceiling crisis*, as documented by Standard & Poor’s, led to a historic credit downgrade and a 1.5% rise in long-term interest rates. Even S&P’s downgrade report admits the 2011 crisis *forced* spending cuts—proof the ceiling works. Investors aren’t fools. If they see the U.S. abandoning even the pretense of fiscal limits, they’ll demand higher interest rates to compensate for the risk. That means costlier mortgages, business loans, and car payments for everyday Americans. Temporary uncertainty is better than permanent fiscal freefall.

Third, the debt ceiling fosters bipartisan negotiation. Yes, debates get messy—but that’s democracy. The ceiling forces opposing parties to the table to hash out compromises. Without it, spending decisions could be rammed through by narrow majorities, exacerbating polarization. The 2011 crisis the opponent mentioned? It ended with the Budget Control Act, which *cut* spending. Chaos isn’t the ceiling’s fault—it’s the price of accountability in a divided government.

The opponent worries about vulnerable Americans hurt by shutdowns, but the real threat is unchecked debt. A *2023 Urban Institute study* shows inflation from debt crises cuts SNAP benefits’ value by 15%—hurting families more than temporary delays. Social Security and veterans’ benefits aren’t safe if inflation spirals from runaway spending. A *2023 Moody’s analysis* projects that unchecked debt could slash seniors’ purchasing power by 20% over a decade. The ceiling isn’t perfect, but it’s the only tool forcing Congress to face fiscal reality. Abolishing it wouldn’t end crises—it would defer them until the bill comes due.

We propose a better path: keep the ceiling, but reform how we use it. Automate raises yearly, but let Congress block them with a supermajority—like a family vetoing a vacation they can’t afford. Denmark’s 30% debt-to-GDP lets it monitor flexibly; our 120% debt demands hard checks. Different tools fit different crises.

The stakes are too high for abolition. Text ‘REFORM’ to 52886—30 seconds to demand smarter fiscal rules. In a $36 trillion debt race, brakes aren’t optional—they’re essential. Thank you.

Output B - Against Side
(Optional) Against Transcript B
In this debate, we shall argue that Congress should not abolish the debt ceiling, as it serves as a necessary fiscal constraint to prevent excessive government borrowing and maintain economic stability.
Our judging criteria is whether retaining the debt ceiling promotes greater fiscal responsibility and long-term economic stability compared to its abolition.

First, the debt ceiling acts as a critical check on government spending, preventing unsustainable deficits. Studies show that when the debt ceiling is enforced, it forces Congress to engage in fiscal discipline. For example, the 2011 Budget Control Act, passed during a debt ceiling standoff, resulted in $2.1 trillion in spending cuts over a decade . This demonstrates that the debt ceiling can effectively curb reckless expenditure. Without this mechanism, there would be no legislative barrier to unchecked borrowing, risking severe fiscal deterioration.

Second, abolishing the debt ceiling could trigger economic instability, including higher borrowing costs and market volatility. Research indicates that the 2011 debt ceiling crisis led to a historic downgrade of the U.S. credit rating by S&P, which increased Treasury bond yields by 0.7% and eroded investor confidence . The Congressional Budget Office warns that repeated brinkmanship over the debt ceiling could raise long-term interest rates by 1-2%, costing taxpayers billions annually . Removing the ceiling entirely would eliminate even this imperfect safeguard, exposing the economy to greater risk.

Third, superior alternatives exist to improve fiscal governance without abolishing the debt ceiling. For instance, Switzerland’s "debt brake" rule, which limits structural deficits to 0.5% of GDP, has reduced its debt-to-GDP ratio from 55% in 2003 to 41% in 2022 . Similarly, Germany’s constitutional balanced budget amendment has maintained its AAA credit rating despite economic shocks. These models prove that targeted fiscal rules can enhance accountability more effectively than abandoning the debt ceiling.

In conclusion, retaining the debt ceiling—while imperfect—remains essential to enforce fiscal discipline and avert economic crises. Abolishing it would remove a vital constraint on borrowing, jeopardizing both U.S. financial credibility and global market stability.

End of Opening Stage Comparison
(Optional) Question 5: Which factors were most crucial in your assessment?
Additional Question 1 / 2
(Optional) Question 6: How long did you spend on this whole evaluation process (including reading the motion, listening to the debate, and answering the questions)?
Additional Question 2 / 2

If you find that you can't submit the results, please check back to see if you have filled in your name and if you have answered every required question with *. Thank you.

© CMU Debate Team